Chen v. Matsu Fusion Restaurant Inc
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-11895
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Chen v. Matsu Fusion Restaurant, Judge Furman approved plaintiffs’ counsel’s fees and costs after an FLSA settlement, without ruling on hourly rates or hours worked.
The ruling directly affected plaintiffs’ counsel’s request for fees and costs and the parties to the settled case.
What happened
Guangfu Chen and other plaintiffs sued Matsu Fusion Restaurant Inc. and other defendants in a case brought in part under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law. The parties reached a settlement, which the court approved as fair and reasonable.
The court had reserved its decision on the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ request for fees and costs. After reviewing the lawyers’ additional submission, the court found the proposed fees and costs reasonable. It relied on the agreement between the lawyers and plaintiffs, similar fee awards approved in the circuit, and a calculation checking the fees against the time reasonably spent under the lodestar method.
Judge Jesse M. Furman approved the proposed fees and costs. He specifically did not decide whether the lawyers’ hourly rates were reasonable or whether the number of hours they reported was reasonable.
The detailed version
- Chen v. Matsu Fusion Restaurant Inc · No. 1:19-cv-11895
- Jesse Furman
- Nov. 23, 2022
Background
The parties reached a settlement on November 15, 2022, in litigation brought in part under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal law governing wages and working conditions. The court approved the settlement as fair and reasonable on the record but reserved judgment on plaintiffs’ counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs.
Fee request
After reviewing counsel’s additional fee submission, the court approved the proposed fees and costs as reasonable. The court identified three supporting considerations: the agreement between counsel and the plaintiffs; fee awards of a similar size that courts in the circuit typically approve; and a lodestar cross-check. A lodestar calculation generally checks a fee request by considering reasonable time multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.
What the court decided
The court approved the proposed fees and costs. It expressly made no finding about the reasonableness of counsel’s hourly rates or the number of hours spent on the litigation. This was an ancillary fee ruling rather than a decision on the underlying wage claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.